I see how it looked like an afterthought. Gay liberation, as it manifested itself in 1969 and into the next decade, was a big deal to me. It is not now, because the times have changed and I've changed, old age and all.

Technology was not an issue in gay liberation but the means to organize, using digital connectivity, didn't come into wide practical use until the late 1990s.

Technology trumps gay rights? — RogueAI

What do you mean by the question? No, I don't think technology trumps gay rights.

Happiness comes from personal qualities and how you think. — Tom Storm

I could not agree more.

I don't think there is a conspiracy either way here. — Tom Storm

I don't think it's a conspiracy either. It's just business as usual.

bad news and tales of disaster and woe provide the strongest interest, bringing in the highest potential revenue — Tom Storm

Aka, "If it bleeds it leads." Totally agree. We enjoy watching disasters that don't have anything to do with us.

Instead they'll simply look for distractions and buy shit to cheer themselves up. — Tom Storm

Just so you know, my comments were following on @CountVictorClimacusIII's comments, above.

It takes too much effort to blow up the local factory or store — CountVictorClimacusIII

We wouldn't want to give too much away but actually, blowing things up doesn't take all that much effort. (that was a joke)

hopelessness and despair — CountVictorClimacusIII

The corporo-technik elite is more likely to lull you with hope and happy talk rather than despair. Hopelessness and despair are not useful corporate values. People without hope and who are deep in despair are unlikely to either produce or consume at the desired Level. If they are hopeless and despairing enough, they might blow up the factory, office, or the store--and then where would we be?

controlled and manipulated by a technocratic / corporate elite through the media — CountVictorClimacusIII

You can rest assured that the technocratic / corporate elite is, or would like to control and manipulate the masses for purposes of enhancing their return on investment. Their efforts include the media, but a lot of their effort takes place in the workplace and marketplace. It may be pervasive, but it's not all that difficult to evade. You can tune out, for instance, and turn off. You can pursue ends that are quite different than those which the techno-corp elite pursues. Sure, there are some costs [you won't be invited to the annual elite Christmas Party, for instance] but you will be free of a lot of their corrosive influence.

For what it's worth, according to the web, more than 60% of high school graduates go on to college. That surprises me. — T Clark

It should surprise you. In 2019 29% of students aged 25 to 29 completed a BA degree. [nces.ed.gov]

The percentage of the population 25 years and older holding at least a bachelor's degree has increased by about five percentage points across the 15 years. In 2005-2009, 27.5% of this group had a bachelor's degree. That increased to 29.3% in 2010-2014. And in 2015-2019, the percentage reached 32.1%. [Census Bureau]

The college drop out rate is fairly high because a) college is more difficult than high school; b) college expenses may be unexpectedly high (living expenses, books, fees, tuition, etc.); c) success in college requires more motivation than success in high school; d) students fail and/or drop out sometimes because they do not know how to self-manage in college.

Many students are not well advised to attend college. They are not well prepared and they are not very interested. There are other manual/technical kinds of work that pay well that may be far more suitable (not talking unskilled or semi-skilled labor).

If college were free, and people didn't have high expectations for employment afterwords, then millions would benefit from higher education. Their cultural sophistication would get a boost, if nothing else. They would be able to appreciate finer grades of porn, for instance.

Well, Aliens, apparently — CountVictorClimacusIII

Or it could be evil spirits. Don't count them out.

I often wonder if we are in the decline phase. — CountVictorClimacusIII

Well, we could be -- depending on how you define "our culture" or "my culture".

I'd say that the average person who completes high school this year is in general less well educated in general than someone who graduated 50 or 60 years ago. The function of high school for the hoi polloi has changed, as has the nature of labor (to some extent). This has resulted in a cultural decline among the majority of the population who are younger (under 55 or 60, say). For a minority of high school graduates, the function of high school is college prep, and for this minority of students who go on to professional work, the culture of education, and their lives later on is excellent.

Those who like classical music are alive at a time of abundant high quality live and recorded performances. This area of culture is better off now (IMHO) than at any time in the last 100 years. Bookstore (local or Amazon/Barnes & Noble, etc.) now have more high quality science fiction than ever before. They also have a lot more schlock. I find too many interesting historical and sociological studies to read should I live another 25 years (I'm 75 now). The INTERNET makes a huge amount of interesting and at least very good quality material available that would once have been very inconvenient to access. That's a cultural improvement.

Do popular music consumers think the culture is getting better or worse? (I don't know -- I'm too old to judge; there are current bands that I like the sound of, but most not so much.). I don't think fast food is improving; good Chinese restaurants are getting harder to find in the midwest, alas. Are sports teams improving or deteriorating? Don't know.

We have a very good technical culture. Smartphones are remarkable pieces of tech. On the other hand, a lot of stuff one buys at big box stores (Walmart, Target, Cosco, Amazon, et al) is quite often cheap plastic junk. That part of the culture is in the dustbin. I can buy excellent shoes (costs an arm and a leg) or I can buy cheaper tolerable shoes which won't last as long, won't be as comfortable, and so on. But... I don't have to go barefoot in the snow.

So, it all depends.

I think all of these other things being equal, money brings more friends, sex, relationships, and achievement - presumably helping to explain the rise in happiness as one's income rises up until 75k. — Down The Rabbit Hole

You are, actually, probably right. On the face of it, money likely does make people happier. Even a $1,000 emergency fund gives people more security than no emergency fund at all (and many Americans have zero funds to take care of emergencies). $2,000; 3,000; 5,000... the more one has on hand, the more secure one is. Let's say, up to one's annual take-home pay. [Many people would have great difficulty saving a year's take-home pay, even over 10 years time.]

Money on hand gives some security, and security gives one more options (up to a point). One can afford to entertain good prospects for friendship and sex, for instance. Having enough money (enough -- not a lot) enables one to avoid continuous cash-short crises, and be more relaxed. Etc.

Beyond having enough money to operate a secure but frugal lifestyle (up to $75,0000 what do you think the mechanism is of money's contribution to one's number of friends, happiness, frequency of satisfying orgasms, happiness, et al?

The theory that money makes people happier has to account for the happiness of people who have not a pot to piss in. How do the poor manage to be happy--enough poor people are happy enough to make the question worth asking.

And what happens after $75,000? Does too much wealth begin to sour? I ask because I've never come close to $75,000, so I know not what it would do for me.

Does more money bring more friends, sex, more stable relationships? It may, but the people I know who have lots of friends, sex, and good relationships are on the low end of the economic distribution. Good looks, health, a strong sex drive, and a pleasant personality help more than money.

If one has great wealth, not just "some wealth", one can arrange to have people surround one with what looks like friendship, sex appeal, and good relationships. In that sense, money can get one those things. But none of this is "the real thing". One's 'friends' and 'bed mates' are playing a role. I've heard that some rich people are actually nice folk who other people like for who they are. That's the rumor, anyway.

The thing with money is that "enough money to meet one's real needs" is as good as a lot of money beyond what one can spend easily.

I’m still looking at how I wish my career and mid life to go. I definitely don’t think pursuing money is a good path. — Benj96

I agree: pursuing money as an end is not good. Thrift is very helpful, as is limiting one's material aspirations (even if it's a necessity). Thrift and low-overhead make it easier to pursue your own agenda.

If you don't mind me asking, what are your career and life plans? What do you want your life to be like in 20 years--assuming the world doesn't go to hell in a big way?

I find this puzzling. Personally I don’t believe happiness is anything more than a transitory emotion. — Benj96

What emotion isn't transitory? One thing: people who are happy don't spend a lot of time discussing it. They get on with their lives. And getting on with one's life probably helps keep one happy.

I'm happy right now so I don't want to discuss this any more.

from reading Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Sartre and exploring ideas from Camus, then relating these to the current cultural climate in the West, I'd like to stir discussion on whether you think we are in decline, or in despair as modern individuals living in our times? — CountVictorClimacusIII

Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Sartre, and Camus didn't invent despair or anxiety. History has had many episodes where people felt like a Christian Scientist with severe appendicitis. [That's a joke; it means suddenly discovering that one's beliefs are decidedly not up to the demands of the moment.)

Society is always in decline, always being renewed. Culture rises and falls like waves on the shore. The details depend on who is pontificating at the moment. There IS real decline and renewal, but it isn't society wide, generally. Not unless events shred the very fabric of society -- such as what happened to the society of dinosaurs when the big rock hit the Yucatan 65 million years ago. Even the plague didn't wreck societies, even when 35% of the population died.

How's the cultural climate? You can't tell in the middle of it.

The data shows that happiness increases with income up until about $75,000.

There would be no need to try and obtain more, but there is no point in giving up the non-material things that could influence happiness, such as friends, sex, love, and achievements. — Down The Rabbit Hole

According to Statista, "In April 2021, the average hourly earnings of all employees in the United States was at 11.31 U.S. dollars." If one figures 2100 hours worked per year, the average income is then $23,800. (Obviously, there are many low wage workers, far fewer high wage workers). No doubt, the $23,800 a year worker would feel rich suddenly bringing home $75,000. For that matter, the $50k or $60k worker would also be happy to have another $15,000 to $25,000 a year.

Is it as hard for the average person to have friends, sex, love, and achievement as $50,000 extra? Achievement seems like it might be the most difficult commodity to obtain. It seems like the opportunities to freely achieve are fairly restricted.

It's late in life for me, and I find I have, or have had, most of what I ever wanted. Some of it is gone, owing to normal processes of aging, death, disease, and so on.

There are two things I wish I had when I was 18--roughly--that I have now. One is peace of mind. I'm pretty contented. It would have been good to be so calm and collected when I was at the beginning of college, instead of bouncing off the walls.

The second thing I wish I had had when I was 18 was the technology I use now -- computer, tablet, internet. These three things (and the companies that back them up, like Barnes & Noble or Amazon) would have made study so much more effective.

Yes, it would have been nice if gay liberation had arrived in the outback where I lived in 1964. All that erotic energy wasted under the cold wet blanket of condemnation and guilt.

Loads of money? Nope. I never had a lot, but I always had enough money. So far, anyway. All that one needs is a little more than one needs--a margin.

I doubt Biden will run for a second term--just based on age.

There is more than the presidential vote at stake, and the Republicans have done a much better job at the state level of getting and keeping control of enough seats in legislatures to control redistricting, which is crucial to either party's long term strategy.

I agree; for the most part, presidential candidates--and other office seekers in some states--win or lose with slim margins. We have not had a major landslide election for president since Reagan in 1984 (525 Electoral votes to Walter Mondale's 13); Before that, Nixon's 520 Electoral votes to George McGovern's 17) and then Roosevelt's 523 Electoral votes to Alf Landon's 8 in 1936.

The Republicans and Democrats exchange control back and forth, and yet the Republic stands. Both parties have strong allegiance to our economic system. Both parties pursue similar policies in many areas. There are, of course, significant differences between the hard right of the Republican and hard left of the Democrat parties. The hard right Republicans, for instance, have strongly resisted New Deal programs like Social Security, Unemployment Compensation, Medicare, Medicaid, and single payer insurance. They haven't scuttled SS, UC, Medicare or Medicaid, but they have tried; and single payer insurance remains unachievable.

The hard right and hard left constitute a cohesive ideological POV, but they do not control very many seats in Congress.

You know how sometimes you look at someone and you just know they are super smart. — TiredThinker

Happens to me every morning when I look in the mirror.

Likewise most people on this thread have shown time and time again they don't care about children other than the ones that die when Israeli is defending itself against Hamas and other terrorists. — Andrew4Handel

I think it has to do with the alleged moral superiority of the oppressed. The same problem exists in the US: Black people killed by the police, accidentally or purposefully, get great press, while black people killed by other blacks, recklessly or purposefully -- a very much larger number-- get minimal press.

A lot of people are also obsessed with power differentials. Israel has much more power than just about anybody else in the Middle East, so to some, that makes them automatically the bad guys.

I don't quite get what this thread is about.

It seems to me that there are no major disjointed periods in history: No new age has dawned where very different rules have come into force; where things that used to happen (200, 2000, 4,000 years ago) are just not imaginable anymore. World War I, II, and the Cold War (with it's potential for global nuclear annihilation) shows us that the 20th century is no more civilized than previous centuries. The five centuries of European expansion (colonization, imperialism, genocide...) are not radically different than previous periods of population movement anywhere on the globe. Whether things as bad may happen in the future is unknown.

After all the butchering of WWI and WWII, and the nuclear threat of the Cold War (which, by the way, has only lessened; it did not disappear) the major economies of the globe have been intentional about keeping a lid on conflict. We should be grateful that a lid is being kept on the kettle, but it isn't because of the arc of justice that this is so. It's caution about unleashing highly disruptive wars. "They" have calculated that war, at this point, would probably not be worth it. (Talking big wars, not little ones.).

Ethnicity and culture are basic building blocks of community. We are not one big Heinz 57 multiculti puree. The impression that we are (a puree) is an elite creation to help suppress inconvenient friction. That will work until material shortages arise (not enough food, water, energy, etc.). Then "WE" will become much more important than "YOU" and business will proceed in the usual and customary warlike way.

One can never have too many south-bashing songs. Now, don't you be triggered, y'all!

Is this song acceptable these days? "That's What I Like About the South... (1947)

Prejudice and stereotype cut both ways. Tall, slim men are subject to more favorable stereotyping than short fat men. A head of thick hair (of whatever type) gets better press than thin patchy hair (irregular spots without hair). Shaved male heads have been subject to extensive amelioration in the last couple of decades--it is no longer the sign of a radical fringe group. There are many examples where various features, skills, histories, and so on that are advantageous to the individual.

Skin tone is famously subject to all sorts of prejudice, stereotyping, preference, race-related emotional reactions, and so on -- among all groups of humans. Both positive and negative emotions are involved. And it is apparently difficult to get it right. Here is the Spanish postage stamp set where the lightest stamp is the most valuable. There are several ways this could have been done better.



I do not see a possible world free of prejudice and stereotyping. There are way too many of us for each encounter to get a 100% unbiased reception. We can, on occasion, rig up encounters where biases are minimized. Supposedly, a jury trial is one such situation. Group job interviews (several interviewers, one applicant at a time) can minimize bias.

Apparently

Dogs know how to puke. Nothing can puke like a dog... — James Riley

The weirdest example of prejudice/stereotyping yet. At least it has a biblical referent:

"As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly" Proverbs 26:11

I'm thinking about selling up and moving to Portland. What do you think? Buy a house there, start a business. Send my kids to school. I was hoping to get your advice. — counterpunch

Which 'Portland' are you thinking of?

You are nothing but star dust.

it isn't merely "somewhat concentrated capital" that is the problem; it is extremely concentrated capital that is problematic, whether it is in private or state hands.

The extremely concentrated wealth isn't invested in production; it is generally invested in paper speculation -- derivatives, currencies... stuff like that. Some of the Uber-wealthy made a lot of money in the sphere of actual goods and services, but once the piles are sufficiently large, it tends to be shifted into the less productive stuff.

I'm not suggesting you buy Thomas Piketty's books; but check out an article or two about him. At least, that's the way I understand it.

BTW, you are over-estimating the harm of money in state hands and under-estimating the harm of money in private hands.

How vigorous a percolation that could be would depend on things like inflationary pressures - and would that be such a bad thing with interest rates close to zero? I don't know. — counterpunch

I don't know either, but I do know that historically (going back a long way--even the Romans) inflation has been a problem. True, interest rates are low right now, despite big cash infusions into the economy. That could change pretty quickly. During the inflation spike in the 1980s, banks were paying up to 15% on savings (for a few months--a splendid rate if one happened to have cash under the mattress). They managed to get that under control, so that the top savings rates were more like 7% in 2006. The big crash in inflated investment values happened in 2008. Since then, interest rates have been low.

One of the reasons Economics is the Dismal Science is that economists rarely (or is it never?) see disaster coming.

I call it 'revolutionary change' only because the installed Uber-wealthy class might not be dislodged by a gradual, evolutionary process. They have everything to lose and nothing to gain from major change.

but imagine I was given the money to develop this technology — counterpunch

Major industry develops that way. Someone has a working undeveloped technology with major potential. Investors give a group the money to start production, whether that be a cast-iron steam engine works, new steel plant, a transistor factory, or a large-scale battery storage farm--whatever it is. There is generally risk involved--that the investment might not pay off well, or worse, might not pay off at all. The Uber-wealthy are not risk takers. There is no need for them to take risks--they already have such a large share of the wealth. They can afford to be indifferent.

That is the distortion the disproportionate distribution of global wealth has. The few thousand people controlling 70% of world wealth starve innovation.

Geo-thermal / H-power is just one more good idea languishing on the shelf.

BC, my dear old friend, long time no see! It's always good to chat with you however briefly. — counterpunch

The same to you.

Large concentrations of capital are necessary to an economy - in ways I don't pretend to understand. — counterpunch

Certainly, robust economies require capital to function properly. The problem with 'concentrated capital' is that too few agents control it, and may apply it towards unproductive ends such as furthering the concentration. That is precisely what has happened in the global economy. A tiny number of Uber-wealthy individuals control a very large percentage (50%+) of capital. (How tiny? It numbers in the dozens.). It doesn't matter, in some ways, whether it is a few dozen super-rich individuals or a government. A soviet-style monopoly of wealth is as counterproductive as a yacht full of gold plated parasites.

Highly concentrated wealth deprives a few million (out of 8 billion) individuals from fielding and developing new ideas. Your geo-thermal/hydrogen idea will probably remain undeveloped for lack of capital.

There will probably always be poor people, because "poor" is relative, A man with $1,000,000 is poor among multi-billionaires. A third-world family with enough to eat and a roof over their heads is poor among affluent first-worlders. I don't know how to define "absolute" (non-relative) poverty. Starvation, unsheltered exposure to the weather, and lack of somewhat clean water to slake one's thirst would probably qualify as "absolute poverty", but that doesn't help someone with zero cash living in an urban homeless shelter and being fed slop twice a day.

It is desirable to have wealth vigorously percolate up the economy (rather than a glacially slow trickle-down), but getting the wealth to the base so it can percolate up requires a revolutionary change in the way wealth is controlled. I don't see that on the horizon.

The Republican slime are busy writing and passing very restrictive state laws making it more difficult for various people to vote, and making it easier for Republican Party officials or operatives to interfere with elections.

So, facts schmacts. It doesn't matter. If the Republicans can jerry-rig [aka, STEAL] elections, they have a better chance of winning. If they win, that is a fact that all the fact-checking in the world won't be able to correct.

We know what restrictive voting can do, because the southern state Democratic Parties had a monopoly on restrictive voting rules and regs for decades. By suppressing the black vote, they were able to dominate the US Congress and get very regressive votes passed. The southern lock on voting suppression was broken in the 1960s.

INTERESTING STUFF -- Politics and Current Affairs, Humanities and Social Sciences, & Science and Technology -- contains a lot of the threads I find most worthwhile. They tend to be about matters I consider more pressing than some other topics, like, oh, Plato, for instance.

The quality of threads will usually be found wanting, because after we have read a thread we really liked and found worthwhile, interesting, life changing, earth shattering and so on, the next thread will probably seem tedious by comparison, It's much the same with fruit. East a slice of the perfect melon or the perfect peach, and the rest is going to seem second rate.

One could rate all of the pieces of melon in a season from heavenly delicious to just plain hell, but unless one has a personal food taster who diverts all but the most exquisites pears, pomegranates, and persimmons, one is probably going to eat the third and second rate melons anyway. They cost too much to just throw out.

Are you referencing 'Cointelpro?

I think it is safe to say that the FBI (and who knows who else) infiltrates and spies upon radical movements. Such spying didn't prevent several groups from disrupting congress on January 6, so one wonders how hard the FBI is trying -- at least with respect to right wing groups.

Whether an individual ends up in the crosshairs of surveillance depends, to some unknown degree on credibility. There are a lot of people out there with some very screwy ideas who, frankly, do not pose much threat to the status quo--however dangerous they might like to think they are. And there are people out there who are a threat, no doubt about it.

Domestic spying, without good cause, violates one's freedom of assembly; freedom of speech; right to privacy. For good cause, domestic spying protects Americans from subversion. That's the theory, anyway.

I suppose this is mostly about men(?) rather than women? — Shawn

I know more about men (being a man) than I do about women. There seem to be plenty of women around whose EQ is about the same as men -- just flavored differently.

BTW, I don't think it is the 'equipment' that is the problem -- the cell phones, pads, laptops, desktops, gaming consoles, television. On this score I differ from McLuhan: the message is the message and people are immersed in A LOT of messages which have nothing to add to any kind of intelligence, social / intellectual / emotional.

People are "schooled" to be unreflective consumers by all the various sellers out there -- everyone from Apple to Zumiez.

Given that your OP is not based in research — counterpunch

Come now, Of course it's not researched. His OP is a seat-of-his-pants impression. Useful conversation, even in intellectual settings, would come to a screeching halt if we had to stick to even faintly researched phenomenon.

According to my research I am unanimous in this opinion.

Some people, like myself, have always been a day late and a dollar short when it comes to emotional intelligence / social intelligence. Still, it seems like many young people are being socialized less successfully now than in the past. There is too much 'helicoptering' from parents, too much planned and structured social interaction early on (as opposed to spontaneous, unplanned, unsupervised social interaction). It is intuitive that heavy screen-involvement (media of all types)--on a level that exceeds what children were exposed to in the past (say, before 1970) has to play a role in socialization. Seems intuitive, may or may not be true.

There is, quite possibly, too much attention being paid to children's emotions, their every quirk. That's not good either. It is, actually, OK to be a misfit--as long as one understands that one is, what that means, and can find authenticity in that role.

On the other hand, one sees a lot of emotionally immature, emotionally retarded adults as well -- some of them running the country/your state/your city/your job/your store/your church/your bowling alley/your bar/etc. Possibly one of them is in your kitchen right now, sulking, throwing a tantrum, screaming at you for putting the peanut butter in the refrigerator, or something. .

Do you have some idea on how to both acknowledge the relativity and derivativity of moral systems, and yet have a sense of certainty about moral issues? — baker

Moral systems are installed in childhood as part of the civilizing project of raising children. (At least, one hopes moral systems are installed). Relativity and derivativity [nice word to say over and over] are adult problems which can safely be neglected--provided one maintains a civilized moral system.

Somewhere in adulthood one may take out one's tools and make (usually minor) adjustments in the installed moral system. In my case, it meant re-defining gay sex as good -- something that required some moral re-engineering. Later on came the matter of God himself and his alleged role in the universe. There was also shifting capitalism and free-enterprise into the "morally defective" column, out of the "inherently good" column. And so on and so forth.

Certainty? Despite tinkering, shifts, and re-engineering, the moral center holds. Why does it hold? Because it is natural (and encouraged) for humans to make rules and stick with them. What keeps us attached to rules? Guilt, for one. Guilt: the gift that keeps on giving. Then there are laws, courts, fines, and prisons if we get way out of line. Laws, courts, fines, and prisons are the expression of mass commitment to moral systems.

There is, of course, room for hypocrisy in all of this--quite a lot of room, quite a lot of hypocrisy. False representation is something that we are also good at, and will tolerate as long as it isn't too extreme, too brazen. Brazen hypocrisy might get one expelled from the country club, or publicly snubbed.

Neither religion nor secular ethics were ever conceived in a social vacuum. There is always a social context--human desires, human needs. human weaknesses, material conditions--that are addressed in either religious or secular morality. No moral system was ever without a predecessor.

Whence the idea that morality can be conceived of without reference to religion? — baker

Some people would prefer to ignore religion. That's fine. What is not fine is thinking that ONCE RELIGION BECAME A MAJOR SOCIAL FORCE, moral and ethical systems could be built that had no relationship to religion. Only if they were cooked up in an impossible social vacuum could they not reference preceding or coexisting moral system. Religions are in the same boat. The oldest religions being practiced now had to reference their social context (of several thousand years ago).

Take stealing. Over our long history, material goods have generally been hard for the average person to come by. A bit of homemade fabric required a personal investment. One's small store of food was hard won. Discouraging people from stealing hard-to-replace goods has likely always been a good idea, secularly and religiously. We 21st century-its may have the odd first-world problem of being buried in material goods. You might be doing me a big favor by stealing some of my excess, unwanted material possessions [just don't count on me looking favorably upon your stealing my stuff, even if all this crap is suffocating me].

There are many titles out there that are just not very satisfactory. I've read several by Brandon Q. Morris, and those have been quite good. I'd except Amphitrite (and sequel) I didn't like those two as well, and I didn't read The End of the Universe. Morris writes "hard science fiction" and is a German physicist. (Brandon Q. Morris is his pen name).

His dramatis personae are interesting; two of them are quite novel. One of the most interesting is a vacuum cleaner (a little robot taken over by an AI). The AI needed a disguise to get into places he wasn't supposed to be, the better to spy on his masters. Never mind how an AI would fit into the small circuits of a robot vacuum cleaner. It is fiction, after all. The little robot ends up on board a space ship and makes himself useful (above and beyond vacuuming). The other very interesting character is a Russian space explorer whose mind ends up being uploaded and used for various purposes.

Morris's fiction avoids ghastly monsters. I like to keep really ghastly imagery out of my head, because it can fester. I could stand Cormak McCarthy's book The Road, just barely, but not the movie. It took me years to get over Alien and it's sequels.

The land people occupy has often been in someone else's possession, until possession changed hands.

The United States occupied the land of various native people; a large share of the central drainage area was purchased from France (Napoleon needed some quick money); it seized much of Mexico; Florida was obtained more peaceably from Spain. We bought Alaska from Russia, but what were they doing in the Western (our) Hemisphere? The Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico were seized from Spain during the Spanish American War. The sun never went down on the British Empire because they occupied so much property all over the world. Spain, Holland, France, Germany, Russia, Turks, Japan, et al have acquired property that way.

Had Hitler settled for Bylorussia and Ukraine, and had they been able to hold on to it, by now (75 years later) Germany would be enjoying the Lebensraum they desired. What happened under Hitler's management had happened elsewhere, like in the US.

Bad; but that's the way expansion often gets done.

Interesting that neither Google nor the Urban Dictionary recognize POMO - short for Post Modern or postmodernists, postmodernism, postmodernitis...

My apologies. I find it annoying when people use abbreviations which are far from obvious.